MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner joined as a Godown Keeper in the Imperial Bank of India at Chak Jhumra which was under the Lyallpur Branch (now in Pakistan). This Bank was taken over by the State Bank of India Act, 1955 whereafter the petitioner became an employee of the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). He was promoted as a Sub Accountant on 1.6.1965 and was further promoted as Officer Grade-I on 16.3.1970. Thereafter he was promoted as Staff Officer Grade-III on 1.8.1978. On the coming into force of the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979, the petitioner was placed in the Middle Management Grade Scale-III (MMGS-III) and appointed as Manager in the Languages Department. According to the promotion policy of the Bank, an officer in MMGS-III who has put in four years of service as on 1.12.1982 or earlier as Staff Officer Grade-III and MMGS-III, becomes eligible for promotion to Senior Management Grade Scale-IV. Petitioner became eligible for promotion on August 1, 1982 as Officer in Senior Management Grade Scale-IV. He was considered for promotion by the promoting authority but was not found suitable and, therefore, ignored. He made several representations against his non promotion and also filed an appeal before the Chairman of the Bank. The appeal was dismissed on May .21, 1986 and the Chairman passed the following order:-

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties and am of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The Bank has 14 Local Head Offices in the country and Chandigarh is one of them. This Local Head Office controls the banking activities in five States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Chief General Manager is the Head of the Local Head Officer. Each State/Union Territory is headed by a Deputy General Manager who was earlier designated as Chief Regional Manager and it is divided into regions and the Head of each region is a Regional Manager. Petitioner had been working in Region-III in Haryana from August 1978 to June 1979 and his reporting authority for the said period was one Mr. J.S. Bhatnagar who was then the Regional Manager of Region-III. From July 1979 to August 1983 the petitioner worked in the Languages Department at the Local Head Office in Chandigarh where his reporting officer was Shri Mohinder Singh, General Manager (Planning) of the Chandigarh Circle from 1979 to 1981. In the year 1982 one Prem Prakash took over as General Manager (Planning) and he became the reporting authority of the petitioner. The Assignment Appraisal Reports pertaining to the petitioner for the period from August, 1978 to June, 1979 and again from July, 1979 to March, 1983, were given by the reporting authorities under whom the petitioner had been working. These Assignment Appraisal Reports were then considered by the Chief General Manager who is the overall incharge of the Local Head Office where the petitioner had been working and he prepared the Promotion Appraisal Form. After taking into account the summary of the confidential reports for different periods, the Chief General Manager found that the petitioner was an officer of moderate ability with above average service record. Accordingly to him, petitioner had not been giving an impressive performance expected of an officer of his seniority and that his performance as seen from various qualitative aspects in both the assignments had been rated as 'average'. Keeping in view all these factors, the petitioner was not considered suitable for promotion to Scale-IV and he submitted his report to the promoting authority in which his recommendation was that the petitioner was 'Unsuitable' for promotion. On a consideration of these reports, the petitioner was informed that the promoting authority did not find him suitable for promotion and he was, therefore, ignored. As already observed, he made several representations against his non promotion and also filed, an appeal before the Chairman which was dismissed by an order which has been reproduced herein above. It is, thus, clear that the case of the petitioner was objectively considered by the Chief General Manager after taking into account the qualitative aspects of his performance as reported by the reporting authorities under whom he actually worked and in his Promotion Appraisal Form he found him unsuitable. A perusal of these reports which have been appended along with the written statement would show that in the perception the competent authority the petitioner was not suitable for promotion. His decision making skill was rated as 'average'. This court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not sitting in appeal over the assessments made by the competent authorities, particularly when they examined the matter in depth after looking into the performance of the petitioner nor can this court substitute its own opinion in place of that of the reporting authorities under whom he had actually worked. The argument that the officers who actually gave the reports had never seen the working of the petitioner, is without any basis. As already pointed out, the petitioner had been working under Shri J.S. Bhatnagar while he was the Regional Manager of Region-III in Haryana and thereafter he worked under Shri Mohinder Singh, General Manager (Planning) and Shri Prem Prakash who succeeded him in the Local Head Office at Chandigarh. These officers had actually seen the working of the petitioner and were the best persons to make an assessment of his working. Their reports were considered by the Chief General Manager and also by the promoting authority when the matter was taken in appeal before the Chairman of the Bank, he, too, did not find any ground to revise the decision already taken by the promoting authority which had assessed the performance of the petitioner under various qualitative aspects as 'average' which made him unsuitable for promotion. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the Senior Manager Grade Scale-IV.

(3.) It was then contended by Shri V.Ramswaroop, Advocate that the petitioner was to retire at the age of 58 years but due to his hard work and good performance he was given extension in service on two occasions by the Bank and, therefore, it is wrong on the part of the Bank to contend that the performance of the petitioner was only average and not suitable for promotion. This, according to the learned counsel, was contradiction in terms and the action of the Bank in not promoting the petitioner arbitrary. This contention, too, does not appeal to me. Petitioner completed the age of 58 years on 4.1.1985 and according to the instructions for extension of service of the officers at the relevant time provided that continued utility of an officer to the Bank will be the over-riding considering while granting extension in service. In the light of the criteria for extension of service contained in the instructions, a note was put up to the Chief General Manager along with the service record of the petitioner for the years 1981-1983 whereon he passed the following order with which the General Manager (Operations) concurred:-